It seems that calling yourself a libertarian is the chic thing to do in college these days. If students are frustrated with both parties, they often say, "Oh, I'm a libertarian."

On the surface, modern libertarianism does seem enticing -- it's either "the stay out of my bedroom and don't pass laws against what I want to smoke" or the whole "capitalism is god" thing that seems to grab students' attention.

It's understandable. What's more enticing than sexual freedom, reefer madness and lots of money? Hey, throw in unlimited nap time and I'm on board.

I'm not trying to marginalize libertarians, though. They did that to themselves a while ago. But those pesky, politically inept creatures seem to be making a comeback.

Take, for example, the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul is an outright libertarian, having run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.

He has generated a bit of buzz on the Internet and managed to pull in $4.2 million in fundraising Monday with his "This November 5th" campaign. It was the largest fundraising record of all the Republicans in the race for one day.

Don't let that fool you, though. Paul is lagging far behind in the polls, and his record speaks more about the poor field of candidates than anything. Paul even had some supporters holding signs Monday out on the corner of Valley Mills and Waco drives. That still doesn't change the fact that Paul is a nutcase, however.

For starters, Paul has gone on record as advocating an end to the federal income tax. Sounds great on paper, but stop and think about all the basic government services you would lose.

No worries for Paul, though, because he is also for abolishing the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Basically, if you hate the government, then Paul is your man.

Paul also opposes the Federal Reserve and advocates a return to hard money (gold standard) or authorizing gold and silver as legal tender to compete with our current fiat currency. He also advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.

He votes against most spending bills and pretty much anything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. This attitude is unproductive at best and downright destructive at worst.

The point is, libertarians are unrealistic people.

They come in all shapes and sizes. Technically, they can lean right or left, but the true libertarian falls within no specific party at all.

But really they are unreasonable people and are usually just lazy closet liberals or conservatives. But I'm just talking about the diehards here -- they can be really annoying.

After all, if you believe in democracy, you have a little libertarian inside of you, too -- we all do.

Modern libertarians are descended from classical liberalism. In the classical definition of the word, most of us are "liberals" -- we believe in limited government, free markets and individual rights among other things.

Both parties today simply put more of an emphasis on either the individual or the economic side of things. But libertarians try to have it both ways, and it doesn't always work. They are just extremist pessimists and should be considered a menace.

You might think I'm picking on Paul. That's because I am.

People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.

If you consider yourself a libertarian or know a libertarian, you should seek immediate professional help.

People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.

Ron Paul has delivered a few thousand children into this world. What more can you say? This writer is sadly probably going to go on and get a join in corporate media, his mind has been properly massaged and his polemics are rapid fire. He has a bright future indeed.

“Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” (Robert Heinlein, science fiction writer)

So many fail to see that most Libertarians simply advocate for the same things that the Founders did, namely LIMITED (not non-existent) government. Many others are disillusioned with the two majority parties, and simply want less of them, too. How this gets twisted into "anything goes" is beyond me...

(well, there is the troubling little fact that the national party seems to keep finding the most extreme advocates of the philosophy, but if one realizes that the party is NOT well-represented by those folks, one can stop making improper over-generalizations about the party.)

For starters, Paul has gone on record as advocating an end to the federal income tax. Sounds great on paper, but stop and think about all the basic government services you would lose.

No worries for Paul, though, because he is also for abolishing the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Basically, if you hate the government, then Paul is your man.

Paul also opposes the Federal Reserve and advocates a return to hard money (gold standard) or authorizing gold and silver as legal tender to compete with our current fiat currency. He also advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.

He votes against most spending bills and pretty much anything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. This attitude is unproductive at best and downright destructive at worst.

The point is, libertarians are unrealistic people.

So...Ron Paul is pretty much the only candidate who actually supports a return to the government which our Founding Fathers implemented? Works for me!

Ya know, I was kinda waffling about who to vote for this primary. This article has clinched it - RP it is!

29
posted on 11/08/2007 9:54:02 AM PST
by ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)

No one here has yet posted the official FR line on Libertarians, so here goes..

"You're all smelly, atheistic, sexually depraved potheads. No one cares what you think, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Oh, and if our side loses the next election, it'll be your fault for not voting for us."

Ya know, I’m not a Libertarian by any means, but I’m not big on “democracy” either. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Or, these days, its the Democrats deciding that we need to tax "the rich" even more to provide "universal health care" and other goodies.

We have too much “democracy” right now, and, unfortunately, we’re bound and determined to get more.

Apparently the state of university education is as bad as I suspect. This could be okay for a sixth grader, but a university newspaper?.

Don't let that fool you, though. Paul is lagging far behind in the polls, and his record speaks more about the poor field of candidates than anything

Why does the fact that Paul (called a nutcase in the next paragraph) is lagging in the polls imply that the other candidated constitute a poor field?

People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.

Who cares what you think? After all the article isn't very thoughtful.

Good arguments can be made against some of the Libertarian posistions. But you made none. For example, the gold standard: you could read Milton Freidman's analysis in his book "Free to Choose." Or you could make arguments about the Libertarians position on abortion from the inalienable rights clause of the Declaration of Independence. Further you could make arguments against free sex on the basis of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England." Abraham Lincoln made many arguments against popular sovereingty in his debates with Douglass.

You say he's an unrealistic selfish nutcase whose ideas sound good on paper but are unproductive, annoying, or destructive; and he's just an extremist pessimist and should be considered a menace. At least his ideas sound good on paper.

A GOP candidate does not have to be -nearly- as "extremist" as Ron Paul to be guaranteed my vote.

It's not necessary to support abolishing Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

I'd settle for just the DOE and the IRS.

It's not necessary to advocate a return to hard money (gold standard) or withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.

Getting out of the UN and the Social Security opt-out would more than satisfy me as a good first step.

I am sure there are a lot of others who are similarly not as "extremist" as Dr. Paul!

For starters, Paul has gone on record as advocating an end to the federal income tax. Sounds great on paper, but stop and think about all the basic government services you would lose.

What services? Roads are paid for through the gas tax, license plates, and other fees. Police and fire department are paid for through local taxes. The only "services" the Feds provide that I give a rat's ass about are those proscribed by the Constitution, which are a miniscule part of the budget and could be paid for through tariffs or a 5% national sales tax.

Name one candidate that seriously intends to abolish the DOE, IRS, UN membership, and Social Security lock-in.
(And I mean seriously, has a viable plan to, and won’t just reshuffle letters and bureaucrats.)

It’s gonna take someone as nuts as RP to do it.

45
posted on 11/08/2007 10:11:17 AM PST
by ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)

Ron Paul is right on so many domestic issues, and is the only Republican candidate who takes the 10th Amendment seriously. What’s sad is that the man seems to be showing signs of age-related mental deterioration, and is bringing discredit on good ideas by bundling them with a loony foreign policy virtually identical to that of the “antiwar” Left.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.